4 ms·

"Even if they believed that Rehtaeh Parsons had been raped" She was under the age of consent, legally there is zero doubt it was rape. Edit: Apparently under C

by analog 13y ago

"Even if they believed that Rehtaeh Parsons had been raped" She was under the age of consent, legally there is zero doubt it was rape. Edit: Apparently under Canadian law it may not have been statutory rape. Edit: Also, apparently she was vomiting whilst being assaulted[1]. I'd like to meet the lawyer who could convince a jury that consent was given. [1] "One of the boys snapped a picture on his mobile phone of Rehtaeh vomiting while allegedly being assaulted." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-search-for-answers-amid-the-grief-for-rehtaeh-parsons/article11175714/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-search-for-...

Pwnguinz 13y ago
No she wasn't. Do you even understand Canadian law? The age of consent is 14, if the other partner is within 5 years of age. Her classmates at the party would have been, presumably, within 5 years of age. Source: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html "The Criminal Code provides "close in age" or "peer group" exceptions. For example, a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person." Edit to address your Edit: Because after having a lot of drinks at a party ('drunk'), and then having what could be considered strenuous physical activity (i.e. sex) would not induce vomiting if it wasn't rape, right? Look, I'm not at all condoning what the 4 male youth have done, but let's still use logic in our discussions. Further Edit: Also I just want to add, unlike other Commonwealth Nations (e.g. Britain), the Canadian legal system does NOT allow extra charges to be tacked on while the legal proceedings are in motion. So before the RCMP and Crown Prosecutors initiate prosecutorial charges, they need to be relatively certain that they have enough evidence to win as they stand currently. They can't just say "Hey, I charge you with X with evidence Y, Z. Let's go to court." Then 5 days later say "and also A with evidence B, C."
- analog 13y ago
  Not to be unnecessarily argumentative but do you think a jury would be convinced by that 'she was throwing up due to strenuous exercise' excuse?
  - Pwnguinz 13y ago
    I don't know. Honestly, I don't. I think it seriously would come down to what context that issue was brought up, how good the prosecution is vs. the defense attorneys (both supplied by the Crown, presumably. Unless one or more of the accused male youths are wealthy enough to obtain his own legal counsel), and how the issue is presented to the judge and jury. But I can certainly seeing it played to the accused favour by the counsel saying something along the lines of: "She was drunk enough that during consensual intercourse, she threw up." Thereby sidelining that issue for pretty much the rest of the trial. Even if it's ever brought up again, in the Jury's minds, it wouldn't necessarily have the negative connotation that you're envisioning.
    - analog 13y ago
      Maybe it's different in Canada but in the UK being that drunk would be very strong evidence that you were in no state to give consent. If you have sex with someone who's so drunk they don't know what they're doing that's rape.
      - fakeer 13y ago
        Well, what if both were drunk? Then who raped whom? Keeping aside the widely accepted stereotype that only men can rape women. PS. A generic question. Not related to the crime mentioned in OP.
      - cperciva 13y ago
        In Canada, there is certainly a point where intoxication makes people unable to legally consent. Presumably the police and/or prosecutors felt there was not sufficient evidence of that level of intoxication.
        analog 13y ago
        She was vomiting in the photo, that's pretty good evidence of that level of intoxication. The accused was also clearly recognisable[1] in the photo so it beggars belief that they could think there wasn't sufficient evidence. [1] “because he is easily recognizable in a photograph showing him raping the victim while she is visibly ill… why the RCMP decided these photographs aren’t evidence of rape is beyond us.” http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/anonymous_on_rehtaeh_parsons_we_couldnt_turn_away_a_request_for_justice/ http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/anonymous_on_rehtaeh_parsons...
throwawayG9 13y ago
In USA everything can be rape, even consensual sex between two 17 y/o teenagers. So please don't talk like this was or had to be universal or something. Nobody is a child until 18, and then magically become an adult when law makers say so. I'm proud to say that 15-17 years old girls can be hot, and I can feel attracted to them.
- analog 13y ago
  What an upstanding member of society you must be.
  - skore 13y ago
    Makes me wonder whether HN could use a function to auto hell ban certain usernames (could be tough to find out which, but 'throwaway*' seems like a good start - I have yet to see one contribute value to a discussion).
    - gizmo686 13y ago
      At first read of your comment, I thought you were referring to analog as the user to hellban, not throwawayG9 (who, by the way, is a 60 day old account). In my opinion, throwawayG9 did contribute something very valuable to this discussion, which is pointing out the irrationality of how we view sex in the first place. The ad hominon attackk against this position that refuses to acknoledge the possibility that we might view sex irrationally, and says that anyone who thinks so must be a bad member of society seems far less productive to a conversation.
      - analog 13y ago
        "refuses to acknoledge the possibility that we might view sex irrationally" Yes, I think it's wrong to have sex with children. And to be 'proud' of wanting to.
        skore 13y ago

by analog 13y ago

Pwnguinz 13y ago

No she wasn't. Do you even understand Canadian law? The age of consent is 14, if the other partner is within 5 years of age. Her classmates at the party would have been, presumably, within 5 years of age. Source: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html "The Criminal Code provides "close in age" or "peer group" exceptions. For example, a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person." Edit to address your Edit: Because after having a lot of drinks at a party ('drunk'), and then having what could be considered strenuous physical activity (i.e. sex) would not induce vomiting if it wasn't rape, right? Look, I'm not at all condoning what the 4 male youth have done, but let's still use logic in our discussions. Further Edit: Also I just want to add, unlike other Commonwealth Nations (e.g. Britain), the Canadian legal system does NOT allow extra charges to be tacked on while the legal proceedings are in motion. So before the RCMP and Crown Prosecutors initiate prosecutorial charges, they need to be relatively certain that they have enough evidence to win as they stand currently. They can't just say "Hey, I charge you with X with evidence Y, Z. Let's go to court." Then 5 days later say "and also A with evidence B, C."

analog 13y ago
Not to be unnecessarily argumentative but do you think a jury would be convinced by that 'she was throwing up due to strenuous exercise' excuse?
- Pwnguinz 13y ago
  I don't know. Honestly, I don't. I think it seriously would come down to what context that issue was brought up, how good the prosecution is vs. the defense attorneys (both supplied by the Crown, presumably. Unless one or more of the accused male youths are wealthy enough to obtain his own legal counsel), and how the issue is presented to the judge and jury. But I can certainly seeing it played to the accused favour by the counsel saying something along the lines of: "She was drunk enough that during consensual intercourse, she threw up." Thereby sidelining that issue for pretty much the rest of the trial. Even if it's ever brought up again, in the Jury's minds, it wouldn't necessarily have the negative connotation that you're envisioning.
  - analog 13y ago
    Maybe it's different in Canada but in the UK being that drunk would be very strong evidence that you were in no state to give consent. If you have sex with someone who's so drunk they don't know what they're doing that's rape.
    - fakeer 13y ago
      Well, what if both were drunk? Then who raped whom? Keeping aside the widely accepted stereotype that only men can rape women. PS. A generic question. Not related to the crime mentioned in OP.
    - cperciva 13y ago
      In Canada, there is certainly a point where intoxication makes people unable to legally consent. Presumably the police and/or prosecutors felt there was not sufficient evidence of that level of intoxication.
      - analog 13y ago
        She was vomiting in the photo, that's pretty good evidence of that level of intoxication. The accused was also clearly recognisable[1] in the photo so it beggars belief that they could think there wasn't sufficient evidence. [1] “because he is easily recognizable in a photograph showing him raping the victim while she is visibly ill… why the RCMP decided these photographs aren’t evidence of rape is beyond us.” http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/anonymous_on_rehtaeh_parsons_we_couldnt_turn_away_a_request_for_justice/ http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/anonymous_on_rehtaeh_parsons...

throwawayG9 13y ago

In USA everything can be rape, even consensual sex between two 17 y/o teenagers. So please don't talk like this was or had to be universal or something. Nobody is a child until 18, and then magically become an adult when law makers say so. I'm proud to say that 15-17 years old girls can be hot, and I can feel attracted to them.

analog 13y ago
What an upstanding member of society you must be.
- skore 13y ago
  Makes me wonder whether HN could use a function to auto hell ban certain usernames (could be tough to find out which, but 'throwaway*' seems like a good start - I have yet to see one contribute value to a discussion).
  - gizmo686 13y ago
    At first read of your comment, I thought you were referring to analog as the user to hellban, not throwawayG9 (who, by the way, is a 60 day old account). In my opinion, throwawayG9 did contribute something very valuable to this discussion, which is pointing out the irrationality of how we view sex in the first place. The ad hominon attackk against this position that refuses to acknoledge the possibility that we might view sex irrationally, and says that anyone who thinks so must be a bad member of society seems far less productive to a conversation.
    - analog 13y ago
      "refuses to acknoledge the possibility that we might view sex irrationally" Yes, I think it's wrong to have sex with children. And to be 'proud' of wanting to.
      - skore 13y ago